Everybody lies! ™ or casuistry describing business processes

One of the methods for collecting information about the process is to conduct an interview with the owner or participants of this business process. This traditional approach is very common, especially for novice business analysts and experienced consultants from Big4. It would seem very reasonable to listen to the person, to formalize his monologue and coordinate the result with him - this is quick and not expensive. One thing is bad - at the stage of analyzing the adequacy of the results of modeling activities (if such is provided), the collected data are rejected due to inconsistency and inconsistency; the process of collecting data on the process must be repeated from the beginning, “to the joy” of all project participants. Why is this happening? As can be seen from the title, the point is in the respondents. Below, with specific examples from personal experience, I will show why this conclusion was made and how to deal with it.

I will start with a small disclaimer: I am not a psychologist, but a business consultant, all conclusions are made on the basis of project management in fictional organizations, coincidences are random. Of course, in a small organization with small processes this may not be observed, but starting from the level of “management” and “department” this is very often. I must say right away that people often lie not intentionally and unconsciously, believe in people and all that.

1 reason: camouflage own incompetence

At the planning stage of the project, the data manager responsible for the unit assigns experts in full confidence that they certainly know the whole process and will be able to answer all the questions. These experts, after being appointed to the project, have nowhere to go, they have to be responsible for providing information. If he is asked a question not from his competence, he shares his fantasies on the topic “how could this happen in my opinion”. To say “I don’t know, contact another expert” means for him the painting in his incompetence and the relevant possible conclusions from the side who appointed him.

In one of the projects, I was invited to a group cross-interview as a third party in order to participate in the farce. Everything was beautiful - the consultants ask questions to a specially designated person, the person solemnly answers, a protocol is kept. At the end of the meeting, the consultants read the results and clarify with the person, if everything is correct, he argues that everyone is happy and is preparing to disperse, but then I ask a question like “And at what point are documents A and B actually being created?”. The responsible person becomes gloomy and recalls that yes, indeed, he lied a bit and the process goes "a little differently."
In this case, I just prepared for the meeting as a processor - I studied the process according to the methodology, made a couple of calls to participants in the field and noted for myself all the ins and outs, so as not to be bored at the interview.

Hence the first advice - do not allow people to lie. Instead of the question “How does A turn into B?” One should ask “Do I understand correctly that in order to turn A into B you need this and that?”. So the expert will devour you "Yes, what do you understand in sausage cuts!" And with self-respect will tell all the details as to the spirit. But for this you need to conduct an interview prepared.

2 reason: corporate solidarity

The fact that process management makes corporate governance transparent is not only the slogan of the vendors of BPM systems, but also the harsh truth of life. The processor may ask simple, but inconvenient questions for the unit manager. There are a lot of skeletons in the cabinets of corporations, especially where the development of an organization is ahead of the stagnation of one division.

At the stage of building the VAD value added model, it was in no way possible to tie up any reasonable value of the work of one unit. The draft contract fell into this unit for three to four days, then with the visa went further along the process. The subdivision is not profile, not controlling, process locks are never at this stage. Strange. Several times I sent business analysts to this division for a solution - what happens to the documents in the division, why do we need the signatures of its leaders? After some time, the division’s management surrendered: it turns out that once upon a time they themselves kept their own register of draft contracts, it was important for them to be aware that such agreements exist. Then they introduced special software for risk analysis of such contracts, gave them access to it, and forgot to change the process. For so many years, they have slowed down the product for several days, but it’s impossible to admit - there are entire departments for this business.

There is only one advice - always ask not only “How”, but also “Why” the performers are involved in any activity.
')

3 reason: personal interest

This is the most frequent case. All probably faced sometimes with the tasks of leadership - to paint their tasks. For those who are deep in their work after a couple of lines, the fantasy ends, and the idlers write three pages each, sticking out the tongue (I saw it myself). Therefore, an attempt to raise its significance through an increase in the laboriousness of operations is not even a lie, but a means of resisting possible dismissal.

Recently, one unit manager asked me to help him calculate the efficiency and disposal of his staff. In one of the lines of the provided data, the eye caught on the operation “Photocopying documents - 1 hour (digit changed)”. I clarified, is there really so much low-skilled work in the division of such a solid organization? The boss says:
- Yes, a lot of such work.
- And how many copiers do you have?
- One
- A staff?
- 15 (digit changed)
- Everyone lies!
(Buddy Watson! 8-hour working day, 15 performers are physically unable to use one resource exclusively lasting 1 hour)

Advice - whenever possible, give priority to the data obtained in an instrumental way, rather than a subjective assessment of stakeholders.

4 reason: trust, but verify ...

I do not want to mention it here, but in life everything can be found. Sometimes there are participants in the project who not only do not help, but also intentionally lead by the nose, leading the results of the project away from reality.

The process of collecting data on a process in one of the projects stalled in the most unpredictable place. So far, all organizations measure efficiency in one understandable value, for example, in rubles, in this organization, parrots per square meter were used as the unit of efficiency. All attempts to obtain the necessary data from the business unit ended in failure. The deadlines for the stage are leaking, but there is no result I am writing a help desk in IT, where I explain with a help of SQL and on fingers what report is needed. They did everything right there, send a report to me, I open it, I drive in new columns with formulas in Excel, he thinks, and I am surprised. The desired schedule turned out to be not quite the form that I expected (and I understood the subject well, being a technologist of this process in the past). The answer to the oddity of the schedule was found in one of the contracts that we managed to collect, there was a clear correlation of the hump on the chart with the reward of a group of people - active participants in this project.

Well, do you still believe the results of the interviews with experts? I hope you are lucky and the results will be adequate, no matter what.
Previous article: We optimize the business process using a simulator